9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out against the appellant - penalty not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 52754 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 58109 /2017 SM - Dated:- 16-10-2017 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Pradeep Karde, Authorised Signatory for the Appellants Shri Ubhav Sangraj, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: The issue in this appeal is whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in retaining penalty of ₹ 30,900/- imposed on the appellant co-operative society for breach of the provisions of Rule 4(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded the following findings: 5. I find that that appellant are e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rincipal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be] may, in exceptional circumstances having regard to the nature of the goods and storage space at the premises of the manufacturer where the goods are made, permit a manufacturer to store his goods in any other place outside such premises, without payment of duty subject to such condition as he may specify . iii) As the stock of 18,75,000 stored separately in the godown and have been duly recorded in the statutory record, the clandestine removal of the same is a non-possibility. As such by taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the goods in question is not liable to confiscation. iv) Though the same might be on account of constraint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, may be permitted to store goods in any other place outside such premises, without payment of duty, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner. I find that except this venial breach of Rule 4(4), there is no other breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules nor any case of clandestine removal is made out against the appellant. In such facts and circumstances, I hold that imposition of penalty of ₹ 30,900/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules read with section 11 AC is not justified. Further, I find that none of the ingredients of section 11 AC have been found in the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
